Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:21, 16 December 2013

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Spoken Wikipedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Shortcut

WT:NPOV

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

Articles on minority groups which don't include the perspectives of these groups?

I can't see any useful guidance on articles on minority groups, except for minority religious groups. I am not sure, in specific, how to deal with this in the article on autism, which has little or nothing from the voices of autistic people, and is mostly from the voice of medical specialists. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether "useful guidance" could or should be anything more that to edit thoughtfully and wisely. The autism article tells us up front it is about a disorder (rather than a group of people), but I do think it should have more to say about the actual people involved. Asperger syndrome, which also says it is about a disorder, copes better by having a section Society and culture and it refers to Autism rights movement which presents a way in which some autistic people speak for themselves. Of course, for those who cannot or do not engage with other people, any voice they do have will not be heard. Thincat (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- and your last sentence is unintentionally a good example of why it's a problem. :) Autistics & non-autistics have very different non-verbal communication, and because they're used to being around their own kind, most non-autistics believe that if they can't see meaning in someone's actions/sounds/etc. it must be meaningless/non-communicative; as a result, an autistic that doesn't speak or type normally is assumed to "not communicate" or "not interact." Autistics have been trying to correct that misunderstanding for at least 12 years, but with all of the official sites repeating the old assumptions about us & research dominated by strongly anti-autistic groups, few non-auties ever know.

(FWIW I was diagnosed autistic as a temporarily-nonverbal little kid in the 70s & reconfirmed as an adult; a close friend plus my parents & stepmother are all on the spectrum and natively use the same nonverbal communication I do.) —xyzzymage 11:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally know any Bantus, but I could probably write an npov article about them, even though they may have no "voice" in my sources. There are plenty of WP:RS around. Most of Wikipedia articles are about places, events, animals, etc. none of which have any "voice" anyway. Sure, if there is a WP:RS written by a victim of condition X, fine. Let's use it. If not, there are plenty of others.

Wikipedia is not Politically correct. It is not not an advocacy group. We are not trying to "help" (or "hurt" either) people with condition X. We are just reporting RS. Wherever they come from. Student7 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ xyzzymage, if what you describe is accurate, I would think it near-certain that coverage of the correct info exists in a few quality wp:ReliableSources somewhere. Although the process breaks down on contentions articles (where the only standard is the unusable wp:weight one of predominance in coverage) I think that on an article like this the editors are likely to go along with putting that information in based on those sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's often offensive to describe autistic people as "people with autism," and/or "victims." It's taking an important part of who people are, and setting it against the rest. Imagine if we were referring to extroverted people as "victims." Or men as "people with maleness."

Also, the article is governed by different rs rules, which make it harder to include autistic people's voices. I think the tighter rs rules might make sense in a "medical aspects of autism" article, but not in a general article.

Finally, complaints about "political correctness" almost always seem to be complaints about asking the same respect for marginalized groups that society already grants to dominant groups. Without which npov is meaningless. Ananiujitha (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(added later). Not really. Right or wrong PC is a claim of excessive deference/sensitivity, more than that given to the majority group. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something to consider... Giving respect to marginalized groups is all well and good... but respect does not necessarily mean giving them an equal voice. In fact, Wikipedia policy is to not give marginal groups an equal voice, as doing so gives them Undue Weight. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it undue weight to give minorities a voice in articles about the same minorities? It would seem to be the definition of due weight. How can we have respect or neutrality without that? Ananiujitha (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers what sources say, not what its editors say. Of course, editors have discretion within that framework. I think that to take this any farther in a useful manner, you would need to be more specific on what you propose or what you see as a problem, with that framework in mind. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to reconcile NPOV with inaccurate widely held positions?

In February 2012, National Public Radio revised its ethics handbook instructing journalists to avoid presenting "both sides of the story" (i.e., "he-said-she-said" journalism, or the view from nowhere) when doing so conflicts with the ability to convey accurate information. In many of our articles, political opinions which are grounded more in the need to distinguish a party from its opponents are presented as just as valid as the opposing view, even when they are demonstrably less accurate or demonstrably grounded in incorrect assumptions. How do editors properly handle such situations? EllenCT (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the undue weight section of this policy, it is handled by giving weight to viewpoints according to how much attention those viewpoints receive from reliable sources. If all of the reliable sources follow a "he said / she said" format, then it is likely the Wikipedia article will as well. Editors can always use their discretion to omit ridiculous viewpoints. Perhaps you could give an example of what you mean, so I could better understand your concern. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, presenting the various opinions on an issue does not mean we have to treat them as being equally valid. Our article on the moon landing may briefly mention the fact that some conspiracy theorists think the landing was all a hoax... but we don't give that conspiracy viewpoint much weight, or present that viewpoint as being "just as valid" as the view that men actually landed on the moon. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The moon-landing-hoax example is too easy, though, because we don't have many (if any) editors obsessed with advocating it. Let's try a trickier case. During the 2012 Presidential primaries, all of the major Republican candidates either expressed doubt in the reality of climate change or called it an out-and-out hoax or fraud. The political position of the party on this issue, as expressed by its Presidential candidates, is inconsistent with the current scientific understanding of reality. How do we neutrally cover a political position which is at odds with objective reality? MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little fuzzier because it's actually a lot of different questions. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. I did say it's a tricky one. But it seems like a much more concrete example of the challenge posed by the original poster. MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of examples of "inaccurate widely held position", sometimes called Conventional wisdom. We can easily describe such "wisdom" without giving it undue credibility or veracity, per WP:TRUTH, simply by the appropriate and sympathetic use of attribution, adjectives and sources. --Iantresman (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And... how much space we devote to describing such "wisdom" will change, depending on the specific article we are talking about. The veiws of politicians probably would merit much if any space in the main Climate change article (nor would I give them much space in the companion Climate change denial article), but the views of politicians would appropriately get a lot of article space in an article on Climate change as a political issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

The first sentence is insufficiently clear in its meaning; this can be seen from the recent attempts to change individual words in it, such as "far"/"fair". Therefore I have revised it. Ideally it ought to be two short sentences rather than one long one; but I feel my version is significantly clearer. Harfarhs (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't agree. I think it's important to include the provisos right up there at the top of the sentence. The only change I think would improve it is to remove "as far as possible" from the bias clause, so it would read:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately and without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

That's the ideal we should be aiming for, so why not say so? —SMALL JIM 20:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Harfarhs brought this matter to my talk page because I'm the one who reverted him twice; hopefully, by your or others' objections to his change, he will see why it is important to discuss such matters on the policy page first. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Harafarh's version is "significantly" clearer than Flyer's... (They both seem to say exactly the same thing, and so I could live with either). That said, of the three suggested wordings, I prefer the one that Smalljim has just proposed. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that there would have been a great deal of discussion about the addition of the phrase "as far as possible" into the policy, but I think I've traced it back to this edit by an IP in Oct 2007. No discussion at all, apparently. I propose that we remove it since it clogs up the meaning of the sentence to no real purpose and it is so subjective as to be useless. —SMALL JIM 17:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re. Catholic or Protestant or secular names for New Testament figures

In my view this is a WP:NPOV and WP:IRS issue first and WP:HONORIFIC second, but anyway, please see comment on opposition to MOS:SAINTS and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if a reliable source is wrong?

I have seen this a number of times on Wikipedia. Sources can be wrong. Even reliable sources, that are generally great, can have mistakes. Writing can be sloppy. To err is human. The issue I have is that when a reliable source contradicts every other source on the subject and even other Wikipedia articles. It seems that the tendency on Wikipedia is to include the incorrect information anyway juxtaposed against the correct information. This is something I have a hard time wrapping my head around. It seems to me that mistakes would make a reliable source somewhat less reliable, right? Especially if their point of view is in the minority. AuburnMagnolia (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... even highly reliable sources can contain factual errors. And if you suspect that a reliable source does contain an error... it is perfectly acceptable to rely on what other sources say instead.

The caveat to this is that (in order to maintain a neutral POV) we should at least consider the possibility that the "error" is not an error at all... but a deliberate disagreement with other sources. In which case, look into why the stand out source says something different, and give it due weight. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have a process for correcting their mistakes. That's part of what makes them reliable. If a reputable news outlet is wrong about something, then the correct course of action is to contact them to request a correction. Likewise with reputable academic publishers. It's not so much that reliable sources never make mistakes; it's that they care enough about accuracy to correct them. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how many reliable sources there are. If it is a topic on which there are only a few experts, and this is one of the experts saying the "wrong" thing, then it would count as a significant minority view, and would be included. If it is a topic for which there are hundreds of experts, and there is only one source saying this "wrong" thing, then it would just be a fringe view and would generally not be mentioned unless it was notable for some other reason. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Some users disagree and think a view can still be non-fringe even if the vast majority—or even all—of the reliable sources disagree with it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that last point... Yup... that does happen... and I have also seen users dismissively label anything they personally disagree with as "Fringe"... even when it isn't. We get all kinds here on WP. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable & Neutral sources for Wikipedia articles = Zionist sources

Course: Zionist Editing on Wikipedia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY

Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups. Two Israeli groups set up training courses in Wikipedia editing with aims to 'show the other side' over borders and culture.

Since the earliest days of the worldwide web, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has seen its rhetorical counterpart fought out on the talkboards and chatrooms of the internet.

Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in "Zionist editing" for Wikipedia, the online reference site.

Yesha Council, representing the Jewish settler movement, and the rightwing Israel Sheli (My I srael) movement, ran their first workshop this week in Jerusalem, teaching participants how to rewrite and revise some of the most hotly disputed pages of the online reference site.

"We don't want to change Wikipedia or turn it into a propaganda arm," says Naftali Bennett, director of the Yesha Council. "We just want to show the other side. People think that Israelis are mean, evil people who only want to hurt Arabs all day."

Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites, and its 16m entries are open for anyone to edit, rewrite or even erase. The problem, according to Ayelet Shaked of Israel Sheli, is that online, pro-Israeli activists are vastly outnumbered by pro-Palestinian voices. "We don't want to give this arena to the other side," she said. "But we are so few and they are so many. People in the US and Europe never hear about Israel's side, with all the correct arguments and explanations."

Like others involved with this project, Shaked thinks that her government is "not doing a very good job" of explaining Israel to the world.

And on Wikipedia, they believe that there is much work to do.

Take the page on Israel, for a start: "The map of Israel is portrayed without the Golan heights or Judea and Samaria," said Bennett, referring to the annexed Syrian territory and the West Bank area occupied by Israel in 1967.

Another point of contention is the reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – a status that is constantly altered on Wikipedia.

Other pages subject to constant re-editing include one titled Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza – which is now being considered for deletion – and a page on the Palestinian territories.

Then there is the problem of what to call certain neighbourhoods. "Is Ariel a city or a settlement?" asks Shaked of the area currently described by Wikipedia as "an Israeli settlement and a city in the central West Bank." That question is the subject of several thousand words of heated debate on a Wikipedia discussion thread.

The idea, says Shaked and her colleauges, is not to storm in, cause havoc and get booted out – the Wikipedia editing community is sensitive, consensus-based and it takes time to build trust.

"We learned what not to do: don't jump into deep waters immediately, don't be argumentative, realise that there is a semi-democratic community out there, realise how not to get yourself banned," says Yisrael Medad, one of the course participants, from Shiloh.

Is that Shiloh in the occupied West Bank? "No," he sighs, patiently. "That's Shiloh in the Binyamin region across the Green Line, or in territories described as disputed."

One Jerusalem-based Wikipedia editor, who doesn't want to be named, said that publicising the initiative might not be such a good idea. "Going public in the past has had a bad effect," she says. "There is a war going on and unfortunately the way to fight it has to be underground."

In 2008, members of the hawkish pro-Israel watchdog Camera who secretly planned to edit Wikipedia were banned from the site by administrators.

Meanwhile, Yesha is building an information taskforce to engage with new media, by posting to sites such as Facebook and YouTube, and claims to have 12,000 active members, with up to 100 more signing up each month. "It turns out there is quite a thirst for this activity," says Bennett. "The Israeli public is frustrated with the way it is portrayed abroad."

The organisiers of the Wikipedia courses, are already planning a competition to find the "Best Zionist editor", with a prize of a hot-air balloon trip over Israel.

Wikipedia wars

There are frequent flare-ups between competing volunteer editors and obsessives who run Wikipedia. As well as conflicts over editing bias and "astroturfing" PR attempts, articles are occasionally edited to catch out journalists; the Independent recently erroneously published that the Big Chill had started life as the Wanky Balls festival. In 2005 the founding editorial director of USA Today, John Seigenthaler, discovered his Wikipedia entry included the claim that he was involved in the assassination of JFK.

Editors can remain anonymous when changing content, but conflicts are passed to Wikipedia's arbitration committee. Scientology was a regular source of conflict until the committee blocked editing by the movement.

Critics cite the editing problems as proof of a flawed site that can be edited by almost anybody, but its defenders claim the issues are tiny compared with its scale. Wikipedia now has versions in 271 languages and 379 million users a month.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.131.143 (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due and undue weight - bringing in line with what Jimbo said about prominence of adherents

I just made a short addition,[1] to the sentence following the Jimbo quote in the section on Due weight. The Jimbo quote has, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". In order to reflect this, I inserted into sentence following:

... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources and the eminence of its adherents, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

I have been asked to gain consensus for this. So, soliciting comments, how do people feel about this change. LK (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 179: / Line 179: @@
 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.215.131.143|121.215.131.143]] ([[User talk:121.215.131.143|talk]]) 14:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Due and undue weight - bringing in line with what Jimbo said about prominence of adherents ==
+I just made a short addition,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=prev&oldid=586298200] to the sentence following the Jimbo quote in the section on [[WP:Due|Due weight]]. The Jimbo quote has, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". In order to reflect this, I inserted into sentence following:
+{{quote| ... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources <u>and the eminence of its adherents</u>, ''not'' its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.}}
+I have been asked to gain consensus for this. So, soliciting comments, how do people feel about this change. [[User:Lawrencekhoo|LK]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 06:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)